Poll finds cross-ideological support for many proposals, sharp divides on others

Banning surprise medical bills drew 90% support, the survey’s highest

The Wall Street Journal polled 1,500 registered voters from Sept. 16 to Sept. 21, 2026, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, asking about some of the top policy ideas circulating in Congress and on the campaign trail. Conservatives, liberals and moderates all backed a set of ideas to make health care and other expenses more affordable, as well as to curb illegal immigration. Other ideas tested in the same survey drew sharp polarization and staunch opposition along ideological lines.

The responses fall into two groups. One group of proposals drew majority support across ideological groups, including measures aimed at lowering the cost of borrowing, housing and child care, and at protecting consumers in health care. The other group split voters by ideology, with the same proposals drawing strong backing from one side of the spectrum and firm opposition from the other.

The clearest agreement covered the cost of borrowing and housing. Capping the maximum interest rate on credit cards was broadly popular across all ideological groups, with 79% of voters in favor and 15% opposed, and opposition to the idea muted. Capping child-care costs for many families was also popular across all ideological groups, drawing 74% support and 21% opposition; opposition was low, though some conservatives opposed it. Limiting rent increases drew support across all ideological groups, with 65% in favor and 28% opposed. Conservatives were about evenly divided on capping rent increases, while Democrats and independents strongly supported the idea.

One cost-of-living measure broke from that pattern. Raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour was polarizing: 57% of voters supported the increase and 39% opposed. Liberals and moderates strongly supported the $20 rate, while conservatives did not.

Health-care proposals produced the strongest agreement on consumer protections. Banning surprise medical bills was the single most popular idea tested, drawing 90% support and 7% opposition. Capping drug prices drew 87% support and 10% opposition, with voters strongly supporting a cap across the ideological spectrum. Opposition to the drug-price cap was very low and was held almost entirely among conservatives.

Voters among all ideological groups said that if a doctor says a service or medication is needed, insurers should help cover the cost. Overall, 88% supported that position and 8% opposed it. Opposition was concentrated among conservatives when voters were asked whether insurers should cover all services and medications that doctors prescribe.

Immigration proposals split along the same two lines. Other than very liberal voters, all ideological groups strongly supported efforts to stop illegal immigration at the border, with 79% of voters in favor and 19% opposed. Other than very conservative voters, all ideological groups strongly supported creating a pathway to citizenship for many people now in the country illegally, drawing 75% support and 24% opposition.

Medicare for All produced a much sharper divide: 59% of voters supported the proposal and 36% opposed. Liberals supported the proposal, while conservatives did not.

The program of arrests and detentions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was highly polarizing, with conservatives in strong support and liberals, along with most moderates, opposed. Overall, 50% of voters opposed the program and 48% supported it.

Ending birthright citizenship — the idea that almost everyone born in the U.S. is granted citizenship — also proved highly polarizing. Overall, 50% of voters opposed the proposal and 47% supported it, and the idea drew strong opposition from liberal and moderate voters.

Taken together, the survey found majority support across ideological groups for several measures intended to reduce household costs, and broad agreement that the nation needs both secure borders and a legalization plan for many immigrants currently in the country illegally. At the same time, ideas popular with voters on one end of the ideological spectrum drew staunch opposition from voters at the other end: Medicare for All was rejected by conservatives, while ending birthright citizenship drew strong opposition from liberal and moderate voters.

The reporting team

The Wall Street Journal’s article on the survey carries keywords by Christopher Mims. Graphics reporter Danny Dougherty works out of the Journal’s Washington bureau on visually driven stories across a range of topics, from elections and politics to economics to science. Dougherty focuses on how new technologies can change the way the Journal tells stories and has built tools that transform reporting with 3D graphics, interactive mapping and complex data.

Dougherty joined the Journal in 2016 as a data reporter before joining the graphics team, and has a history of working with reporters to analyze and contextualize data, specializing in coverage of economics, the pandemic and financial regulation. Before the Journal, he was a data and graphics reporter for McClatchy Newspapers, Bloomberg, the Pew Center on the States, the Pew Research Center, U.S. News and World Report, The Columbia Missourian and The Maneater. He previously worked on the Pulitzer-winning Panama papers reporting and Polk-winning coverage of China.

Dougherty is a St. Louis native and a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia, where he majored in journalism and minored in art history and archeology.

Aaron Zitner is a reporter and editor in The Wall Street Journal’s Washington bureau, focusing largely on how politics are driven by demographic and economic change and reporting on trends in polling. Earlier, he was the Journal’s national politics editor. Previously, Zitner was deputy chief of the Washington bureau for the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and other Tribune newspapers. He helped lead presidential campaign coverage for the Los Angeles Times and served as the paper’s White House and Washington economics editor.

Zitner’s reporting includes a stint covering the emerging sciences of biotechnology, stem-cell research and the field of human fertility for the Los Angeles Times. He has also been a staff reporter for the Boston Globe and the Concord (N.H.) Monitor. Raised in Pittsburgh, he is a graduate of Oberlin College.